Game should punish instead of not allowing

[Alex_brunius]

I agree an usual or unrealistic decision should come at a high political power cost, increased pop unrest (if that's still a thing) and negative reactions from other contries, But shouldn't be impossible.

As long as it costs USA say twice as much political power as they can earn the entire game to invade Canada in peacetime when they are maximum isolationist, Ok sure, that could work too...

 

[trionwolf]

For Democratic USA at this time ( the most isolationist of all nation ) it would be 100% impossible to declare an offensive war on and attack Canada. It's simply inconceivable, and on a scale of what's plausible and not such an action is about as plausible as alien invasions and Germans cloning T-rex dinosaurs to use in combat...

To start with Canada had a bigger Army in 1936, so there's that ( tells you a good deal about just how isolationist USA was ).

Then there's the issue that even with fascists taking over country after country and invading (and overrunning) other democratic countries left and right neither the US Congress nor their population could be convinced to join the war in Europe even as late as 1941 after 2 years of war rampaging in Europe and 4 years of war rampaging in Asia. Declaring war without the populations support might have been possible, but not without support of congress.

And even in Dec 7 1941, when the enemy bombed US soil and killed thousands which finally convinced them to join the war, they were not really prepared for a war either...




USA today ( or in the 1990s ) is totally different then USA in 1936. Then USA were one of the most isolationist nation on earth, today they are one of the most interventionist and aggressive in their foreign policy. Saying USA should be able to invade anywhere they want back then, when they can't even do that today is even worse then claiming Germany today should be able to become Fascist and attack Europe easily now just because they could back then... It doesn't work that way.


These things is what separates Paradox wargames from other Grand Strategy Games like "Making History" where you see USA helping Germany attack Soviet by landing tanks in and invading Siberia through the bering straits...
This is why Paradox games teaches you actual history, while other games about the era just lets you "play with war toys".

there is no way the Canadian army was larger then the US army in 1936, yes we were isolationist but we still had a larger army then Canada. the regular US army in 1936 stood at a man power pool of 150K troops, and the National guard was larger. I dont see the Canadian military standing at 300K plus soldiers in peace time. and cursory glance says they strated to massivley reorginze in 1936 and had a standing force that was really small

 

[Alex_brunius]

there is no way the Canadian army was larger then the US army in 1936, yes we were isolationist but we still had a larger army then Canada. the regular US army in 1936 stood at a man power pool of 150K troops, and the National guard was larger.

I didn't count national guard since if your talking about an offensive war from USA these would not be involved. There were extremely few active divisions in the US Army 1936, and Canada with their commonwealth membership had a much more involved foreign Policy demanding a bigger army.

Canada joined the UK and declared war on Germany 10:th of September 1939 for example, just a week after UK and France ( in great contrast to USAs isolationist actions ).

 

[Kovax]

For Democratic USA at this time ( the most isolationist of all nation ) it would be 100% impossible to declare an offensive war on and attack Canada. It's simply inconceivable, and on a scale of what's plausible and not such an action is about as plausible as alien invasions and Germans cloning T-rex dinosaurs to use in combat...

Are you suggesting that all of the time I spent creating those Panzer gray T-Rex animated figures (they're NOT sprites, I'm told) has been for nothing?

I think that "unreasonable" behavior, such as having the US or other democracy engage in that sort of warmongering, should be extremely difficult, if not impossible to do without a drastic change in the external circumstances, but it would be sort-of nice to have the option. The question is whether or not it's worth the developer time to implement something that's only going to be used under the most extreme circumstances by players who are actively pushing the limits.

First, it should require some "just cause" (as a result of external threatening actions), as well as a fairly high degree of party organization and popularity to pull off in the first place, with highly loyal ministers willing to go along with it, otherwise it gets shot down hard before it ever gets implemented. There should be some preparation time for the government and paid portions of the media to have it out with the free media, and try to push the idea onto the public despite a lack of willingness. That process should take a long time, as in months or years, depending on the perceived threat, until public sentiment allows enough of the leading party to vote in favor of the action without fear of being forcibly removed from office or open revolts breaking out.

Second, there should be a major hit to party popularity when it is activated, all but guaranteeing the loss of the next election. Second, the dissent or national unity hit should be pretty close to crippling, so if you take that course, you're going to be mostly ineffective for the next few years while your country recovers from the political turmoil. If you still have the military assets available after suppressing potential or actual revolts, you can launch your invasion.

Note that in the case of Japan, there were strong external perceived threats, the President and several members of Congress actively pushed for at least limited involvement in Europe for several years, and the US military began active preparations for an imminent war by some time in '38 or earlier. In spite of constant pressure from the top, the US public was NOT ready or willing to jump into conflict by 1940, and the active exchange of gunfire between US escorts and German U-Boats in order to force an "incident" didn't change that. It wasn't until Japan made it a moot point in December of '41 that the US publicly abandoned its isolationism and joined the Allies.

There has to be some ahistorical threat or incident that tips a democracy from its passive state toward war. In more isolationist cases, that has to be a severe threat. Even then, it takes time for public sentiment to change. If the UK fell to Germany, for instance, then I could see the US beginning a shift toward a war footing, and increasing its willingness to perform hostile actions to strengthen its own position.

 

[CrasherZZ]

There should be some preparation time for the government and paid portions of the media to have it out with the free media, and try to push the idea onto the public despite a lack of willingness. That process should take a long time, as in months or years, depending on the perceived threat, until public sentiment allows enough of the leading party to vote in favor of the action without fear of being forcibly removed from office or open revolts breaking out.

Sounds like stuff that might already in the game?

Would 9/11 qualify as an external event trigger because the rest of it is very similar to build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, aka 2nd Gulf War?Remember the Maine? Event that created enough support for the US to DOW on Spain.

Problem is that manufacturing ahistorical events would be ahistorical. For a WW2 game, historical events should be sufficient.

 

[Peter Wass]

I'm generally a fan of using soft restrictions to discourage players rather than hard bans on actions; in a perfect world, I'd be right there with you. However, all soft caps are at risk of unintended exploits, and no amount of playtesting will ever catch 100% of exploits in game. One example was the workaround in EUIV during westernization, where a player could invest all their monarch points into construction, start the westernization, and then disband all their buildings in order to not lose any mp. While an outright ban is almost always the easy/lazy way out of an issue, the amount balancing and playtesting that needs to be sunk into a softer restriction can make such a feature simply not worth the effort, especially when the feature in question will almost never be used.

There also comes a point at which trying to nanny people away from exploits results in a restrictive experience. If everything is going to be straight-jacketed into historical precision, you might as well have a World at War marathon.

In the case of the USA invading Canada, congress would never agree to that. No matter how much you wanted to do it. So I like Paradox's system.

I think this kinda gets to the crux of the problem. The game is already giving players a lot of rope when it comes to what they can do in a democracy unless they want an entire system that governs what the electorate is and isn't willing to go along with they can't really loosen up restrictions on these more extreme things.

Comments about "the electorate would never agree to ..." tend just to be a poor substitute for an argument anyway.

I disagree. If you allow players to do anything as a democratic nation would make the game very unbalanced. As an example, just think about France, UK, and Poland DOWing Germany in 36 to pre-emptively win ww2 . It would be terribly bad for gameplay and I won't even talk about how unrealistic that would be.

If you want to do things like this as a democratic nation, first you have to change to an authoritarian regime, which means you need to win a civil war.

If you don't want to do them, don't. Going on a world conquest rampage as Canada doesn't particularly appeal, but if someone else wants to, what is the harm.

Soft restrictions means everything is possible to do. Should calling alien invasions to attack your foes or being able to clone T-rexes and dinosaurs to use in combat also be possible but just have big penalties through "soft restrictions" then? Or what about Germany inventing space flight and building a moon base in 1941?

Would that make the game more enjoyable for you?


My point was that certain things was and should be impossible to do, otherwise it stops being an immersive historical based wargame.

Have you never seen Iron Skies? More seriously, it is a completely fatuous argument. Alien invasions and cloned dinosaurs are technologically impossible today, let alone 80 years ago. Invading a neighbour was old hat. Pretending that technological impossibility and political difficulty are analogous eradicates credibility.

Sounds like stuff that might already in the game?

Would 9/11 qualify as an external event trigger because the rest of it is very similar to build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, aka 2nd Gulf War?Remember the Maine? Event that created enough support for the US to DOW on Spain.

Problem is that manufacturing ahistorical events would be ahistorical. For a WW2 game, historical events should be sufficient.

It's a game, not a documentary.

 

[Zaku]

If you don't want to do them, don't. Going on a world conquest rampage as Canada doesn't particularly appeal, but if someone else wants to, what is the harm.

By the same logic you can also say that if players want to a-bomb someone in 36 the game should let them do that. After all if you don't want to drop the bomb then don't do it.
Every game needs rules. Democracies not starting wars without a reason is one of those rules for HOI4, for the sake of gameplay and balance(and plausibility). If you want to go in a killing spree with a democracy, then you need to work towards becoming fascist or communist first. (or mod the game)

 

[Telenil]

Have you never seen Iron Skies? More seriously, it is a completely fatuous argument. Alien invasions and cloned dinosaurs are technologically impossible today, let alone 80 years ago. Invading a neighbour was old hat. Pretending that technological impossibility and political difficulty are analogous eradicates credibility.

At some point, political difficulty becomes political impossibility. If the current US president tried to order an invasion of Canada, the people would say no, the Congress would say no, and if the President went for it anyway, he would be impeached. That's not the same sort of impossibility as building a bridge over the Atlantic or walking into space, it is neverhtless impossible for any practical purpose. The president would have to massively shift the mood of the population, and we are back to going fascist first.

 

[safe-keeper]

In the case of the USA invading Canada, congress would never agree to that. No matter how much you wanted to do it. So I like Paradox's system.

This. The game should restrict you from doing things you'd simply never be able to do. It's bad enough you can turn the US into a Communist nation during WWII, for example.

By the same logic you can also say that if players want to a-bomb someone in 36 the game should let them do that. After all if you don't want to drop the bomb then don't do it.
Every game needs rules. Democracies not starting wars without a reason is one of those rules for HOI4, for the sake of gameplay and balance(and plausibility). If you want to go in a killing spree with a democracy, then you need to work towards becoming fascist or communist first. (or mod the game)

Also this.

 

[CrasherZZ]

It's a game, not a documentary.

There are already lots of games out there that allow you to do whatever you want - anything goes. That's fine, I have played plenty of those games myself. That's why I like HOI. It at least attempts some historical plausibility and authenticity, with depth and complexity and an attempt to model historical events. There are far fewer games like HOI than the "anything goes" type of wargames.

So it really comes down to why you love HOI.

 

[Killerrabbit]

The OP is right in principle, there is more fun to be had if there are more allowable options. Now, it's also part of the fun if some actions are locked until you have archived certain requirements first - or even better, where you have to make strategic choices between say, diplomatic efficiency, and militarism. Or better trade terms vs having the best conscription laws. Simply put, a sandbox put within a realistic enough framework. HOI4 is certainly heading there. I'm sure meaningful player choice can be further improved upon, but I think it looks promising enough.

I think the primary reason why democracies can not declare war under many circumstances is very simple: The global threat mechanic should work against the Axis, not the allies. Meaning that - if you as the US invade Canada, the global threat value will rise, which again will allow the US to rearm, giving you game-breaking bonuses early enough such as full conscription. A perfect sandbox game would perhaps have a seperate threat value for all 3 major ideologies, but the global threat value works well enough in this game under the assumption that the Axis is the primary aggressor. Is it ideal for large multiplayer games where things can get very unhistorical? I don't know, gonna withhold judgement until I can try it myself.

I respectfully disagree.

You know, there is a button for that, right?

 

[Mac Lazer]

Comments about "the electorate would never agree to ..." tend just to be a poor substitute for an argument anyway.

How?

 

[magritte2]

USA today ( or in the 1990s ) is totally different then USA in 1936. Then USA were one of the most isolationist nation on earth, today they are one of the most interventionist and aggressive in their foreign policy. Saying USA should be able to invade anywhere they want back then, when they can't even do that today is even worse then claiming Germany today should be able to become Fascist and attack Europe easily now just because they could back then... It doesn't work that way.

I'm not convinced non-interventionism was really that deeply ingrained in American politics, since they'd been using military muscle in Latin America rather frequently up until 1933. Still, without modeling the details of the political system in ways that are likely beyond the scope of the game, I find it hard to see how they could realistically implement "soft limitations". In the absence of mechanisms to block player actions through impeaching the president or even charging him with treason, I don't see a good solution. As long as the hard limits are reasonable reflections of what kinds of actions the country could realistically take, I don't have a problem with them. I don't want to have the ability to legalize gay marriage in 1936; it just couldn't happen. Now, if the political situation is drastically changed (as it was in Germany in 1932-1933), then a lot of those hard limitations should go away. But converting the U.S. into a fascist dictatorship should be made quite difficult.

 

[Peter Wass]

By the same logic you can also say that if players want to a-bomb someone in 36 the game should let them do that. After all if you don't want to drop the bomb then don't do it.
Every game needs rules. Democracies not starting wars without a reason is one of those rules for HOI4, for the sake of gameplay and balance(and plausibility). If you want to go in a killing spree with a democracy, then you need to work towards becoming fascist or communist first. (or mod the game)

A-bombs didn't exist in 1936 so that one can be added to the list of idiotic straw men.

At some point, political difficulty becomes political impossibility. If the current US president tried to order an invasion of Canada, the people would say no, the Congress would say no, and if the President went for it anyway, he would be impeached. That's not the same sort of impossibility as building a bridge over the Atlantic or walking into space, it is neverhtless impossible for any practical purpose. The president would have to massively shift the mood of the population, and we are back to going fascist first.

There is no such thing as political impossibility.
If the current president tried to order an invasion of Canada then the people could do somewhere near the square root of sweet foxtrot alpha about it. Congress would say no if he asked them first, but he arguably has a months wiggle room before he needs their permission, and the current president is nothing if not an extractor of the mictuted fluid when it comes to overstepping his bounds. He might conceivably be impeached, although it is tricky to know on what charge, and it is quite possible that it wouldn't happen due to the extreme improbability of the senate convicting.

It is rather telling that the arguments in favour of locking everything up are couched in opposition to such extreme examples that nobody has even come close to proposing.

But converting the U.S. into a fascist dictatorship should be made quite difficult.

Difficult yes, impossible no.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Comments about "the electorate would never agree to ..." tend just to be a poor substitute for an argument anyway.

A much better substitute then no argument at all though, it's not like you've made the case why the electorate would agree to that.

Either way like it or not it's Paradox's game and not yours, they've chosen to put restrictions on the actions of Democratic nations and this thread has proven that they've got support in that decision.

Don't like it? Make your own game/mod.

 

[ringhloth]

The biggest issue with punishing instead of not allowing is that you have a lot of decisions that, to a veteran, are unquestionably a "never do this because it's a terrible idea", but to a newer player it's a "hey this is cool what does it do?" That's a big problem, and makes it more difficult to learn for not being any more interesting for an advanced player to play.

 

[DaAvenger]

The problem with this discussion is that the question was loaded from the start:

One example would be that if you're playing a democracy and want to invade another country, you should be able to do it and not just by forcing you to turn fascist.

You can do it. The cost of doing it is going fascist. Don't say the game makes it impossible just because you don't like the path they give you.

I don't think any good arguments have been provided for why you should be able to stay democratic but still do crazy stuff like this. I don't really see any president getting away with unilaterally invading another democratic country without effectively seizing control of the government. I suppose they could let you push the button, then provide a long transcript of your impeachment proceedings and some journal entries from your prison stay, but I prefer them to just grey out that button.

Personally, these limitations seem reasonable and realistic to me. They've provided a lot of latitude for a-historical behavior, especially given various national focuses (foci?) that allow you to do things that "break the rules"

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

In the USA National Focus Tree you need to follow "War Plan Red", which leeds to "Embargo the Empire" --> "Anti-Imperalism" --> "Strike at the Empire"

And of course Britain should get "The Empire Strikes Back" which is a bit disappointing at first but becomes seen as one of the best movies decisions that Britain ever made.

 

[Opanashc]

Nobody starts wars without reason. Nobody rules alone - there is always support from a variety of sources, else, the ruler is removed one way or another.

 

[ringhloth]

I didn't count national guard since if your talking about an offensive war from USA these would not be involved. There were extremely few active divisions in the US Army 1936, and Canada with their commonwealth membership had a much more involved foreign Policy demanding a bigger army.

Canada joined the UK and declared war on Germany 10:th of September 1939 for example, just a week after UK and France ( in great contrast to USAs isolationist actions ).

The USA wouldn't really be classified as a standing army anytime before WW2. In 1860, the US Army was roughly 16,000 strong, including officers. The combined might of both sides at their height was 1,500,000. Though the army was around 125-150,000 in 1936, in 1941, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the army had skyrocketed to 1,600,000 million men. Saying that the USA was weak in 1936 because their army was the smallest of the great powers is wildly inaccurate.

And by 1941, the start of 1941, the population of the US essentially felt that if the war started to go any worse for the UK, then the US should declare war on Germany. Public opinion in the US was not isolationist. They were fiercely on the UK's side. They just didn't feel that fighting to protect them was quite necessary.